On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:29:34AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > - should __array_size (b) be an integer constant (size_t)2, or should it
> > be non-constant (size_t)2 because the argument is a VLA (albeit a VLA
> > whose top-level dimension is an integer constant expression)?
>
> Ouch. I woul
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:35:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> What's right is:
>
> * In cases where it should return an integer constant (you've said that's
> when the argument is not a VLA, as for sizeof), there should be no
> diagnostic.
Right.
> * In cases where it should not return an in
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:10:08PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > It sets it to be null - but does it diagnose conversion from integer to
> > pointer without a cast (it should do so if __array_size is not evaluating
> > to an integer constant expression
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:10:08PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> It sets it to be null - but does it diagnose conversion from integer to
> pointer without a cast (it should do so if __array_size is not evaluating
> to an integer constant expression, but not if it is evaluating to an
> integer con
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > For whether arguments are evaluated, you need __array_size with arguments
> > that have side effects, and then test whether those side effects occurred.
> > For whether results are integer constant expressions, you can test e.g.
> > whether __array_
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:51:43PM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:05:36PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 03:16:49AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > > For a hypothetical change to the C standard itself, I think one might use
> > > the name "_ArraySize
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:11:54PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
>
> > So in other words, adapting all of the sizeof tests would be appropriate,
> > and sizeof tests for non-array types would change from expected passes to
> > expected failures?
>
> It's no
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > Critical issues to define and cover thoroughly in tests include the
> > rules for when operands of sizeof are evaluated, as adapted
> > appropriately for this keyword, and for when it returns various kinds
> > of constants.
>
> So in other words, adapt
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:05:36PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 03:16:49AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> > I will look into submitting a PR for this properly soon, but will not
> > mind if someone wants to take this task upon themselves instead,
> > especially as we are into
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 03:16:49AM +, Stuart Brady wrote:
> As a brief aside, I do get an ICE with the following source, without any
> modifications of my own:
>
>int bar() { return foo(); }
>void baz(int c[foo()]) { return; }
>
> I will look into submitting a PR for this properly soo
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:41:02PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> For proposed features, I find documentation and testcases of much more
> value than the rest of the implementation.
I can see the logic of that. This is the part that I find a little
tricky, so please bear with me here.
> Critical
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Stuart Brady wrote:
> Documentation and test code are currently absent from the patch, but I
For proposed features, I find documentation and testcases of much more
value than the rest of the implementation. Critical issues to define and
cover thoroughly in tests include th
This patch adds an __array_size keyword for the C, C++, Objective C and
Objective C++ languages which is similar to the sizeof keyword, but
yields the size of the specified array in elements, not bytes, and will
not accept expressions of pointer type.
At the moment, I am only looking for feedback,
13 matches
Mail list logo
